Starting off, Politico offers 6 lingering questions regarding the resignation of David Petraeus, which includes

1. Why resign now?

The Obama administration’s first sex scandal exploded just three days after the president was reelected at the end of a hard-fought campaign and just days before Petraeus was scheduled to appear at a congressional hearing about the attacks in Benghazi.

That’s a good question. Why three days days after the election with the hearings coming up? One of the other questions is “5. What role, if any, did Benghazi play?” Will Petraeus make himself available to Congress? Oh, and then there’s this question “4. Why weren’t Obama and the Hill committees told earlier?” Who says Obama didn’t know? There’s zero chance the head of the FBI wasn’t informed of the probe. And there’s zero chance Eric Holder, as head of the DOJ, wasn’t informed of a probe against the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency by his underling, the head of the FBI. And zero chance Holder doesn’t inform his boss, Barack Obama. And they all surely knew weeks ago, if not longer. Why? We learn on Internet page 2 of the NY Times article

Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, said Saturday an F.B.I. employee whom his staff described as a whistle-blower told him about Mr. Petraeus’s affair and a possible security breach in late October, which was after the investigation had begun.

“I was contacted by an F.B.I. employee concerned that sensitive, classified information may have been compromised and made certain Director Mueller was aware of these serious allegations and the potential risk to our national security,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement.

Mr. Cantor talked to the person after being told by Representative Dave Reichert, Republican of Washington, that a whistle-blower wanted to speak to someone in the Congressional leadership about a national security concern. On Oct. 31, his chief of staff, Steve Stombres, called the F.B.I. to tell them about the call.

Let’s be clear: Petraeus having an affair is only an Obama scandal inside the circles of Washington politics. Obama is not at fault. This should not be a black mark on Obama in the least. People are responsible for their own conduct. That said, there is a saying in politics “it’s not the “crime”, it’s the coverup.” There was no actual crime committed, just a really poor choice of conduct by Petraeus, but, what did Obama and his administration know and when did they know it? Did they make sure to hold off on the resignation till after the election? Did they wait till after the election to inform Petraeus that they knew about the affair?

Another question would be why Congress was not informed till after the election? Diane Feinstein was a bit put out that, as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she was not informed of the probe. Who made the decision to not inform her and others in Congress? Damned sure it wasn’t some down the FBI/DOJ food chain.

On Saturday, the two government officials who had been briefed on the case dismissed a range of media speculation that the F.B.I. inquiry might have focused on leaks of classified information to the news media or even foreign spying. “People think that because it’s the C.I.A. director, it must involve bigger issues,” one official said. “Think of a small circle of people who know each other.”

But….

The F.B.I. investigators were not pursuing evidence of Mr. Petraeus’s marital infidelity, which would not be a criminal matter, the official said. But their examination of his e-mails, most or all of them sent from a personal account and not from his C.I.A. account, raised the possibility of security breaches that needed to be addressed directly with him.

So, exactly why were they investigating Petraeus? And how is it possible that the White House had no clue? Will this turn into another example of the Obama administration hiding information? Surely, we can’t expect them to inform the public, but they should have informed certain members of Congress.